Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
—
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
UL Monroe wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
UTEP -5.5
O/U 47.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
3 factors agree (PPA + PPO + Havoc) → UTEP
· 82.4% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
UL Monroe 2025 Schedule
UL Monroe's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/28 | UL Monroe vs St. Francis (PA) | -31.0W29–0 | 47.0 | W29–0 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | UL Monroe at Alabama | +34.0L0–73 | 50.0 | L0–73 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/20 | UL Monroe at UTEP | +5.5W31–25 | 47.5 | W31–25 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | UL Monroe vs Arkansas State | -1.5W28–16 | 55.5 | W28–16 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/4 | UL Monroe at Northwestern | +12.5L7–42 | 43.5 | L7–42 | O | N |
| Sat 10/11 | UL Monroe at Coastal Carolina | -3.0L8–23 | 46.5 | L8–23 | U | N |
| Sat 10/18 | UL Monroe vs Troy | +4.5L14–37 | 45.5 | L14–37 | O | N |
| Sat 10/25 | UL Monroe at Southern Miss | +14.0L21–49 | 48.5 | L21–49 | O | N |
| Sat 11/1 | UL Monroe vs Old Dominion | +16.5L6–31 | 55.5 | L6–31 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/15 | UL Monroe vs South Alabama | +4.0L14–26 | 49.5 | L14–26 | U | N |
| Sat 11/22 | UL Monroe at Texas State | +20.5L14–31 | 59.5 | L14–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/29 | UL Monroe at Louisiana | +10.5L27–30 | 47.5 | L27–30 | O | Y |
UTEP 2025 Schedule
UTEP's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | UTEP at Utah State | +3.5L16–28 | 59.5 | L16–28 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | UTEP vs UT Martin | -7.5W42–17 | 49.5 | W42–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | UTEP at Texas | +39.5L10–27 | 52.5 | L10–27 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | UTEP vs UL Monroe | -5.5L25–31 | 47.5 | L25–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/27 | UTEP vs Louisiana Tech | +3.5L11–30 | 48.5 | L11–30 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/8 | UTEP vs Liberty | +1.5L8–19 | 46.5 | L8–19 | U | N |
| Wed 10/15 | UTEP vs Sam Houston | -3.5W35–17 | 46.5 | W35–17 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/28 | UTEP at Kennesaw State | +12.5L20–33 | 53.5 | L20–33 | U | N |
| Sat 11/8 | UTEP vs Jacksonville State | +1.5L27–30 | 46.5 | L27–30 | O | N |
| Sat 11/15 | UTEP at Missouri State | +6.5L24–38 | 47.5 | L24–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/22 | UTEP vs New Mexico State | -4.0L31–34 | 44.5 | L31–34 | O | N |
| Sat 11/29 | UTEP at Delaware | +4.5L31–61 | 55.5 | L31–61 | O | N |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2025 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ UTEP
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2025 season ·
Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences
Who builds scoring momentum?
UL Monroe +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UL Monroe Edge
UL Monroe +10.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UL Monroe
1 — 2 sequences
GC Battle
UL Monroe
12.9 — 77.4 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
UL Monroe won by 6
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
CSS and GC disagree on this matchup. When the metrics split, historical cover rates are essentially random — treat this as a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
UL Monroe
Bryant Vincent #1
5–7 (42%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Bryant Vincent
Yr 2
#1
DC
Earnest Hill
Yr 2
#1
UTEP
Scotty Walden #1
3–9 (25%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Mark Cala
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bobby Daly
Yr 1
#1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games. ✓
Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself ✓
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games. ✓
Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself ✓